Richard Levick, Esq., is Chairman and CEO of LEVICK, which provides strategic communications counsel on the highest-profile public affairs and business matters globally. Mr. Levick has been named four times as one of “The 100 Most Influential People in the Boardroom.” He is the co-author of four books and a regular commentator on television and LEVICKDaily.com.
Follow Richard Levick on Twitter and circle him on Google+, where he comments daily on public affairs and global business communications issues.

Who manufactured the billy clubs that Bull Connor and his minions used on peaceful civil rights protestors in the 1950s? Practically no one knew then and absolutely no one knows now.

Times, of course, have changed. Digital media rabid for content casts its glare on every otherwise hidden facet of major news events, especially when the visuals are compelling and an outraged public lobbies its representatives to take unprecedented regulatory action. Add to that an abiding policy issue – like the militarization of local police departments – and the overall dynamics spell future uncertainty for every private sector interest affected.

Which brings us to Ferguson, Missouri. Among the indelible images arising from that national tragedy are billowing clouds of tear gas dispersing crowds in riotous scenes uncomfortably reminiscent of Cairo. Tear gas, of course, is ostensibly non-lethal and therefore its discussion is not quite the same as the debate over police militarization. Yet it’s a discussion nonetheless as the purported hazards of the gas now raise questions about closer control or even outright illegalization.

The discussion should, in turn, raise business issues for the entire non-lethal weapon industry, especially as tear gas has been promoted as a safer alternative to Tasers as well as rubber bullets, which have killed people, and water hoses, which can maim. In toto, it’s a $1.6 billion-dollar industry that, despite modest recent growth as a result of security spending cuts, has seemed poised for a sharp upturn amid ongoing concerns over the use of lethal weapons to ensure domestic security.

Some observers lament that the industry does not have much to worry about. The public, they say, has gotten used to the deployment of such weapons. Sven-Eric Jordt, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine, says that “massive use worldwide has decreased the threshold in western countries to deploy tear gas.”

These observers may be underestimating the public’s persistent sensitivity and, therefore, the industry’s longer-term exposure. Let’s look at it from another angle, actually five other angles, to assess what could be next in terms of industry liability.

First, because we live in an event-driven world, every Ferguson-like occurrence (including less cataclysmic ones) will renew safety discussion of non-lethal weapons, especially tear gas. Tasers are used one-on-one and, in the majority of cases, involve individuals who need to be subdued. By contrast, tear gas rains on the just and unjust alike. Nor do the triggering events necessarily fade over time. Commentary on tear gas use in Ferguson has, for example, duly commemorated the 2011 use of pepper spray on handcuffed Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.

Second, critics of tear gas have at least one prepossessing message: it has been banned in warfare since the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. I’m not sure Americans appreciate being less privileged than, say, ISIS.

Third, the “scientific” debate is already underway, the same kind of debate that has bedeviled companies under attack for their environmental practices. One side produces evidence; the other side calls it “junk science.” The arguments go back and forth, keeping the issue interminably alive.

Fourth, the tear gas issue has already proven to be a hot social media topic – to such an extent that residents of Gaza were tweeting Ferguson protestors with advice on how to protect themselves during exposure.

Finally, and decisively, images are the most powerful communications medium. Sometimes words alone pictorialize the event. Consider this report from Ferguson: “Others fled, crying out for water as stinging tear gas bit at their eyes….‘I had to go back for my sister,’ explained 18-year-old Travis Hollins, who ripped off his shirt as tears streamed from his eyes. His 21-year-old sister had fallen near a tear gas canister…”

If not a perfect storm, such multi-front vulnerability should at least justify an exercise in risk management among non-lethal weapon companies, along with some strategic thinking about how to weather the gathering storm. One company, Safariland unit Defense Technology – to which some of the gas used in Ferguson has been traced – offers an example of such strategic messaging with website pages labeled “less lethal.” Yet this kind of terminology might confuse the audience. What’s needed industry-wide is language that conveys the human value of the work in no uncertain terms.

At TASER International, Inc., CEO, Director and Cofounder Rick Smith takes a thoughtful approach, sounding neither defensive nor antagonistic to critics of the non-lethal weapon industry. “The point we have to get across in as many ways as we can is that there’s a big difference between crowd control and riot control,” he tells us.

Smith is keenly aware that this battle can be won or lost on the visuals. “The industry needs to do a better job deploying technology to gather video evidence,” he says. Now we mainly see police response: torrential gas and panicked crowds.

But “the public also needs to see what the police are responding to, the overturned cars and menacing behavior,” advises Smith. “That balances the narrative. That gives a fair rendition in pictures.”

By the way, TASER’s own tagline is short and sweet: “Protect Lives.” It’s the right message. In fact, it’s the only message.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.